Posted on 03/30/2007 5:09:20 PM PDT by neverdem
Earlier this month, in the case of Parker v. District of Columbia, a three-judge panel of the Federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia broke with all other federal circuits by holding that a gun-control statute violated the Second Amendment.
In a split decision, the court found that the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and a companion law that requires that legally owned firearms be stored disassembled could not be reconciled with the text of the amendment.
The amendment reads, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The only modern Supreme Court case to look at the issue, United States v. Miller, found that the Second Amendment was designed to preserve the effectiveness of the organized militia.
The Parker case breaks from this precedent by finding that the militia purpose is but one among a laundry list of other individual uses of arms protected by the Second Amendment, including hunting, self-defense, and protection from the "depredations of a tyrannical government."
This last claim, that individuals have a right to take up arms against representative government, was last tried out by the Confederate States of America.
When Abraham Lincoln was elected president in 1860, many Southerners, fearing that Lincoln would abolish slavery, felt they had no obligation to accept the results of the election. Southern attempts to withdraw from the union quickly led to individuals taking up arms to fight what they perceived as federal tyranny.
As president, Lincoln acted on his belief that violence against the government was illegal and unconstitutional. In his first inaugural address he stated, "It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination."
As he asked the nation to go to war to protect its sovereignty, Lincoln added, "And this issue embraces more than the fate of these United States ... It presents the question, whether discontented individuals, too few in numbers to control administration ... can always ... break up their government, and thus practically put an end to free government upon the Earth."
Lincoln made it clear that individuals or even states did not have the authority to determine what was "just cause" to wage a war against the union. As much as it pained him to send young men off to die, he did so to vindicate the idea that the Constitution and its amendments did not create some kind of national suicide pact.
Following the Civil War, the Supreme Court, in the case of Texas v. White, adopted this view and held that the Constitution did not countenance armed rebellion against the federal government.
The Parker court, by implicitly reviving Confederate constitutional theory and wrapping it in the authority of the federal courts, takes the ideals of conservative judicial activism in a lunatic direction.
The case is likely to be appealed. Let's hope that the rest of the D.C. Circuit knows enough history to recog´ nize that Lincoln, not Jefferson Davis, is the guiding spirit behind our system of constitutional government.
Horwitz is the executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and a visiting scholar at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Speaking of lies, the Southern secession was not lawful. As you already know.
See? Even your computer refuses to process the nonsense you post.
The U.S. Supreme Court apparently saw it differently.
I assume that's why the confederates never established a Supreme Court even though their constitution required one?
Once it met, the state convention WAS the government of Virginia and those delegates who voted to rebel thereby were no longer legitimate delegates, leaving the loyal delegates as the state government. Congress and the President and the Supreme Court agreed. Your disagreement is with them, not me.
LIES, half-truths,"out of context" quotes, diversions, "changing the subject" & outright NONSENSE is the "stock in trade" of every PROPAGANDIST.
as "The DAMNyankee Minister of Propaganda", you are an EXPERT at those things, if at NOTHING else.
DISHONESTY is your JOB. furthermore, you are KNOWN by everyone here (with the possible exceptions of "Mr SPIN", the fool & "ftd", his "buddy".) to be NOTHING more than a PROPAGANDIST, so you fool FEW FReepers.
free dixie,sw
when are you going to ADMIT that the TYRANT was also a WAR CRIMINAL, who cared NOTHING about the Constitution or JUSTICE/HONOR and EVERYTHING about POWER & MONEY.
free dixie,sw
the TRUTH is that LOTS of things "required" by law do NOT happen, when a nation is at war with an cruel/merciless INVADER.
care for a "do over". fyi, constantly whining about NO supreme court makes you LOOK dumb & clueLESS.
free dixie,sw
I'm always amused at the hypocrisy of the Lost Causers here, excusing the CSA government's actions on the grounds of wartime necessity but refusing to grant the United States government the same consideration.
now, why not go "get a life" OR better yet, head back over to DU (from which i suspect you came), TROLL???
free dixie,sw
You suspect there would have been a supreme court in 90 day. You feel that Virginia would have been an independent republic. You think that slavery would have ended in 10 years absent the Southern rebellion. The one common threat in all of these is you post whatever nonsense you pull out of your backside without a single shred of evidence to support it, and expect us to accept it as gospel just because you say so. And in spite of all the inaccuracies and out-and-out lies you've been caught in in the past. Sorry, but your reputation preceeds you. And the actions of the Davis regime are too numerous to overlook.
the TRUTH is that LOTS of things "required" by law do NOT happen, when a nation is at war with an cruel/merciless INVADER.
Let's be honest. They didn't happen because Davis and the rebel regime didn't want them to.
that lincoln, the TYRANT, was the CAUSE of the war, that KILLED a MILLION Americans, without ANY just cause,
that the BLOOD of the HUNDRED (or more) THOUSAND unarmed,INNOCENT civilians & CSA POWs is solely on his hands & upon the hands of the thugs that formed the lincoln MALadministration AND
that the BRAVE/HONORABLE "Billy Yanks" bled/died for NOTHING but POWER, $$$$$ & lincoln's LUST for MORE of both.
but sadly for you and every other DAMNyankee apologist, those are the FACTS, no matter how much you may wish to change/deny/"soften" them.
free dixie,sw
The only thing I’m willing to admit is that you’re as full of crap as a Christmas turkey. Again.
It was just a couple of weeks ago that you seemed to have a different opinion of all the men who fought under the United States flag in that war...
ALL the DAMNyankee invaders cared about was THEMSELVES & plundering the prostrated southland, thereby filling their deep pockets with loot!"THE TRUTH about "the filth that flowed down from the north". on the whole, they were GARBAGE,who PREYED ON the helpLESS"
"there WERE many honorable "lads in blue" like Josh Chamberlain, who "looked away & said NOTHING" to stop the atrocities
but then, EVERYbody on FR (with the possible exception of "Mr SPIN" & "ftd") KNOWS that, so it's NO surprise.
free dixie,sw
there were HONORABLE "Billy Yanks" who did their best in a POOR CAUSE (i.e. invading the new dixie republic) AND there were DAMNyankee "filth in blue", who were NOTHING but criminals, plunderers, rapists & FILTH.
why is it that everyone except you (and perhaps the 2 DUMB-bunnies, "Mr SPIN" & "ftd") understood what i meant??? could it be that you DID understand me & are just BEING a LITTLE TROLL??? (fyi,i LIKE that answer!)
free dixie,sw
Even the honorable ones (ithat you have to admit to) you smeared by saying they "'looked away & said NOTHING' to stop the atrocities"
Your words. I understand them perfectly, even if you want to distance yourself from them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.